Second thoughts on "shadow government"

After letting the words used by Jeb Bush sink in, "shadow government" doesn't sit too well with me. It sounds vaguely threatening, like "You're shadowing me." It has an element of menace in it. It isn't openly an "opposition" government; no, nor is it concilatory; it's there to criticize. The consistent thing about guys like Jeb Bush, in line with the old Republican philosophy, is to be against something, not for it; to be in a position to scare people, not to advocate good positive things. Putting people and ideas down is the tack they have taken; witness McCain's whole campaign; witness Sarah's natural proclivities. So Jeb Bush starts off by surfacing and proposing that the Republicans start a "shadow government" to watch, and criticize, and follow what Obama's Administration does closely. What bothers me about this, deeply, I might add, is the fact that it is not being supportive in any way. No one is saying, if we want to survive, we have to work together, guys. No, the implication is that "they" (Democrats) are the enemy. And in this terrible time, when the country is literally falling apart, and everybody is unsettled, these isolated Republicans are settling in to be critical. As if they aren't losing their savings, too; as if they are exempt; as if, should the country really fail, they wouldn't be affected. Quite a blind spot. isn't it. They aren't even pretending to help, to support, to work with their counterparts to make things better for everybody, themselves included. How antedeluvian, how "old school", how traditional, how like McCarthy and all of the Republican demogogues, to stand back and continue criticizing the Democrats who are working very hard, very earnestly, to fix what went wrong with this country. So Jeb Bush is nothing more than another toxic Republican, joining in the long line of negative right-wing naysayers and destroyers, no better than Limbaugh and Hannity and O'Reilly. Pretty disgusting, I'd say. Stand on the sidelines and criticize while the Titanic goes down; criticize everything the crew and captain does. Disgusting, guys, absolutely disgusting.

We stood back and criticized, and watched them make mistakes, as well as successes. We criticized them for their mistakes, made fun of them, and trampled on them when we could. And when the wave came and engulfed us all, Republican and Democrat, Independent and Libertarian, it all became real and they were weakened, and we knew we had plenty to atone for. But it was too late. The damage had been done.

Jeb Bush Surfaces, Finally

At last. For sometime now I've been waiting for Jeb to surface and now he has with the wonderful catch phrase of setting up a "shadow government." Jeb, you may remember, was the popular Governor of Florida and the heir apparent before his brother beat him to the Presidency. Jeb was the smart brother. He wants to lead the opposition, of course. He's already denigrating Obama's victory by saying that OBama had a significant advantage because of his fundraising warchest; yet he's also saying in the next breath, so to speak, that the Republicans can't be “the old white-guy party,” and need to reach out, especially to Hispanics. He told NewsMax.com, “We have to actually be proposing solutions to what appear to be intractable problems as it relates to education, healthcare, infrastructure. Across the board there are ways that we can show that we are truly on the side of the people that are concerned about the future of the country, without abandoning our principles.” And what are those principles? Some of the Republican staples, such as lowering taxes, reforming education, and reform in general. It's only the beginning, folks, of a long and sustained campaign and it will be interesting to see him cross paths with Sara Palin in times to come. I still believe Jeb Bush is the man to watch.

Fear is the key

In today's L.A. Times, Neal Gabler has an article that analyzes exactly what "conservative" Republicans have been doing, tracing their strategy back to Senator McCarthy, not to Senator Goldwater, who in 1964 lost in one of the biggest landslides in American electoral history and wrested the party from its Eastern establishment wing.

According to Gabler, the myth tells how Nixon co-opted conservatism, talking like a conservative while governing like a moderate, disenchanting true believers. Ronald Reagan, next, embraced it wholeheartedly, becoming the patron saint of conservatism and making it the dominant ideology in the country, even though he didn't practice it in terms of fiscal responsibility or size of government. George W. Bush picked up Reagan's fallen standard and "conservatized" government even more thoroughly than Reagan had, cheering conservatives until his presidency came crashing down around him. That's how Gabler believes the mythology tells it.

Gabler's thesis is that the real connection is from Sen. Joe McCarthy, to Nixon to Bush and possibly now to Sarah Palin. McCarthy attacked alleged communists and the Democrats whom he accused of shielding them, as well as the centrist American establishment, Eastern intellectuals and the power class, many of whom were Republicans, including moderate ones. McCarthyism became a means to play on the anxieties of Americans, convincing them of danger and conspiracy even when they didn't exist, which he used to build power and support. George H.W. Bush used it to get himself elected, terrifying voters with Willie Horton (and denigrating Dukakis as a commander-in-chief). His son used fear of 9/11 and convincing voters that John Kerry was a coward and a liar and would hand the nation over to terrorists, tried and true McCarthy tactics used very aggressively, and W. then used fear and stealth in pushing through totalitarian unconstitutional measures. The thread continued through McCain and then Palin, probably through Rove (who also coached W.), and I quote from Gabler, "That's why John McCain kept describing Barack Obama as some sort of alien and why Palin, taking a page right out of the McCarthy playbook, kept pushing Obama's relationship with onetime radical William Ayers."

What Gabler believes is that, because of this tradition, the Republican Party will continue to move rightward. Fear and blame; rabble-rousing; the Rush Limbaughs and Sean Hannitys and Bill O'Reillys; and now Palin. This is the direction the Party will take. Probably because it cannot be believed as the party of small government or fiscal responsibility or moral integrity; all credibility lost in the harsh reality of events; at least not until people forget and these actualities become memories and fade. It is a dangerous approach because it incites people to do violent things, especially as times become more stringent.

It is, I believe a shame, because some of the original precepts of fiscal responsibility and keeping government out of peoples' lives and moral integrity are well worth preserving. The Republican Party which stood for those princples was a Grand Old Party. But, I hate to say it, those are all too easily trumped by fear-mongering and, I might add, difficult to achieve. I would nominate the Republican Party today as the Party of Fear, as opposed to the Party of Solutions. And, if that's the direction it's going in, yes, it's a shame.

Bush didn't like to think; used his gut

On Chris Matthews' Show today, Matthews argued that one of the major differences between President Bush and President-elect Barack Obama is the fact that Obama is intellectually curious while Bush never liked to do "homework."  Bush made decisions based on "gut".

Everybody seems to forget that a President like Bush, who doesn't really like to think but only acts on "gut" feelings, was therefore easily manipulated by other, stronger people with real convictions (not that we agree with them) like Cheney and Rumsfeld. Bush was led around by the nose by Cheney and Rumsfeld and the neocons; he basically never questioned them; so they had a field day with him.

Bush also turned, like Circe, people who worked for his Administration and disagreed with his acts, into beasts or swine by playing on their ambition and loyalty: one example is the greatness that once was Powell and the smartness that once was Rice, as well as so many others now departed. So Bush was the figurehead and people behind him like Cheney and Rumsfeld called the shots, and the Republican Congress went along with it and destroyed their party, and the Democrats, fearing to look soft on terrorism, went along as well.

What a sorry mess was made of the whole thing. If Bush were to try to confront what he had wrought, he would probably be fit for a padded cell.  No way it could sink in.  He must still feel invulnerable; his Dad will bail him out as he always has if he runs into any trouble.

A Plan in the back pocket

I once did business with a number of General Motors divisions. This was some time ago. At one meeting, in Saginaw, I believe, I ran into a young man who was headed to executive status; he told me, proudly, that he was going to go to G.M. University. I blinked; I'd never heard of it. Afterwards, the more I thought about it, the more I began to realize how incestuous G.M. was when someone went to their university instead of being sent to Harvard, or M.I.T. or U.C.L.A. or Carnegie Mellon or any one of the major schools outside of the G.M. universe, so they could absorb new and different ideas about how G.M. should be run.

Alas, G.M. still seems to be caught in that incestuous, inwardly-looking mode. I would have thought, when they confronted that Congressional Committee recently, and they were asked for a "Plan", one of them might have reached in his back pocket, and pulled one out, and said, "Here it is. We've been working on it feverishly. Happy to share it with you. Any improvements or suggestions are welcome." But no, all these auto executives could do was slink off in shame and go back on their jets to the cocoon that they live in in Detroit.

Maybe they'll come up with something; maybe not. But I kind of wish they had had a Plan in their back pocket, happy that someone asked for what they had been working on so hard to make things right.

Foolish me.

Disgusted with Congress, Aren't You?

The stock market slips and falls and careens downhill, and the stories out of Congress (OK, in this case the Senate) are filled with indignation about how they broke their own rules applauding cconvicted felon ex-Senator Stevens and lauded him, like the tight, ineffective, incestuous, elitest club they are, while afterwards they leave and won't be back to even acknowledge the crisis in the downward spiral of stocks or to attempt to do something about it. No wonder they have such low rating.

"Do-Nothing" is a mild epithet for this pitiful group of Senators and Representatives. The media has no story about it; no indignation; only stories about their treatment of the Big Three Automakers. I, for one, am angry at how indifferent they all are, what a bunch of sheep they are, when it comes to the fundamentals of our economy. The stocks and mutual funds are part and parcel of most Americans' savings, their 401Ks, their IRAs, and the Congress walks out and doesn't even pay attention while Rome (in this case, the U.S.A.) burns.

For those who think government programs are ineffective

Why haven't I seen this mentioned anywhere?

Those Republicans, Conservatives, Libertarians who still believe in less government involvement and regulation need to be confronted with how stupid was their push for private Social Security Accounts. If that had happened, more than 55 million people would have lost, at a rough guess, 40% of their benefit payments or the entire Social Security Program would be at grave risk. This points out:

. That government programs, like Social Security, are always badly administered as contrasted with private investment accounts or IRAs

. Investing in the stock market pays huge dividends in comparison to the stupid, badly-run government-administered social programs

. The enormous funds that investment houses, like Bear Stearns (remember them?), would have earned would have sustained them through the current crises

. The resultant revolution by those over 65 would not have serious social consequences in our country.

(Of course I'm being sarcastic by listing these points here.)

But the point is well-taken and no respectable Republican, Conservative or Libertarian would dare to mention privatization of Social Security today. At least until we've all forgotten the trauma that has been on-going as the stock market has tanked and continues to do so. Or, for that matter, letting investment companies alone as good ole Phil Gramm and Rush Limbaugh recommend, without any regulation or over-sight.

Are the Republicans really that stupid?

Senator Chuck Hagel, obvious unfettered, lashed out at the Republican Party at a talk he gave at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies.

I happen to agree with two of his points.

The Republican Party has been led around by their noses by such so-called conservative windbags as Rush Limbaugh and by fear of criticizing the current Administration of Bush and Cheney, whose policies have been disastrous, not to mention such players as Karl Rove and Tom DeLay. So as long as these players continue to determine the direction the Republican Party takes, they will continue to go down the path to oblivion.

The other stupid thing the Republicans have been doing, in direct contravention of what the majority of Americans want, is to continue to criticize, grouse, complain and predict dire doom as a result of Obama and the Democrats taking over the reins of government. No reconciliation; no spirit of "We'll work together!"; just "doom and gloom" at what Obama will do. No offering, as Hagel points out, of solutions or alternatives to help lift our country out of the morass Bush and Cheney have created.

It seems there are very few intelligent, positive Republicans. They sound too much like angry old men, who don't know how to do anything except complain. I know I'm generalizing, but my starting point was Chuck Hagel, if you recall, and his blistering speech.

Obama's TV Interview

Saw Obama's TV interview on Sixty Minutes and was personally blown away by how calm, how relaxed, he seemed. I was joking that he must be on something. But, no, it's his style, and I find it reassuring, but, even more than that, I find it to be exactly what's called for in these upsetting, traumatizing, chaotic times. The guy sounds and acts normal, without the usual politicians' sloganeering and over-blown calls to emotionally tug at our heart-strings. He isn't trying to be relaxed; he is relaxed.

I guess my feeling is that Obama will attempt to assemble (I hate to use the words because that turned out to be such a disaster) the "best and the brightest" of the people out there. And, if they can't begin to right this ship that has been so thoroughly wrecked by Bush / Cheney & Co., then perhaps nobody can. Obama's refreshingly candid, relaxed yet disciplined attitude will trickle down to thoese chosen to work in his Administration, and we can all, Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Independents, Right- and Left-Wingers, hope for the best because that's what we have going for us.

Remember, Obama's reaching out to McCain, meeting with him, to talk about working together. No sniping or back-biting, just a joint mutual private conversation about how they can cooperate. Who can fault that at this early stage of the game? (I exempt the Right Wing Nuts like Limbaugh from this remark, and leave them to flounder and excorate anything that sounds like bi-partisanship.)

Response to Dick Cavett's "Wordsmith of Wasilla"

Cavett's piece in the NYTimes, complaining about Sarah Palin's pushy appearances on TV, is epitomized by this explanation of how she talks, "...frayed syntax, bungled grammar and run-on sentences that ramble on long after thought has given out..." He wonders at the people who praise her and find her refreshing and appealing.

I am reminded of the line from that wonderful radio show, "Many years ago, in the Orient, Lamont Cranston, the Shadow, learned how to cloud men's minds..." To paraphrase, "Many years ago, in Alaska, Sarah Palin, the Governor, learned how to cloud men's minds..."

She's like that person in the movie by Truffaut, The Wild Child. All she knows is controlled aggression. Her feedback loop, except for delivery of one-liners, has apparently been disabled and it doesn't seem that she is capable of learning anything subtle or even substantial.

But, I submit, what is striking about Sarah Palin, and frightening, is the relish with which she rouses the rabble. When people yell epithets at rallies, when they spew out such emotionally-charged words as "Kill!" and "Traitor!", she evokes the darkest, most base part of the American psyche. That is how she seems at times to be most energized, and it is what we all need to be mindful of, because, if the situation gets bad enough, it can happen here. Some of it already has.

Notable Quote

Something that caught my eye from The Huffington Post, a comment from biotechwoman:

If Republican Governors can offer solutions that WORK, as Palin says, where have they been for the past 8 years? Why is it that we have socialized the banks, insurance companies, and soon to be auto industry, under the Republican watch? Why has America committed war crimes under the Republican administration. And, why do the poorest, most uneducated and unhealthy people in the US, come from Republican states?

Consequences of our acts

According to the blog Pandagon, the manager of eatery El Coyote in Los Angeles is a Mormon who donated to “Yes on 8.” With a large gay clientele, the owner should not have been surprised when they decided to boycott the establishment.

I guess I believe that, if you are a good Mormon, and your Church asks you to support a bill that denies the marriage of gay couples, you need to be proud to follow their precepts. They are against the marriage of gays. They ask you to support them in that. Period. If you however do not believe in that, you tell your religion that. But you don’t complain if the gay people boycott your restaurant and hurt you financially, pretending that you didn’t do something they find offensive, because you did. You simply cannot have it both ways. Sorry.

The only way out, if you truly like the gays and their rights, is to disavow your Church on that particular issue. If they don’t like it, tough. It all boils down to who has power over you; do you have power over yourself or does your Church have power over you? That’s a decision you must make for yourself. You cannot evade the consequences of your acts. 

I mention this because it seems to me McCain has been guilty of this double standard, and he now has to face up to the consequences of his acts.  Pretending it was all fun and games is a favorite ploy.  Denial is another.  Sometimes evil is punished, sometimes it goes unnoticed.  But standing up tall for what you believe in is a real virtue.

The quote by  Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) really makes sense here:

"In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;
  And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
  And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
  And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up." 

Letter to local editor

Dear Editor:
The Register's "Opinion" Page on Wednesday featured two columns ("How left will Obama go?" by David Boaz of the Cato Institute and "Obama and an intellectual renaissance" by Thomas Sowell), both of which are "downers."
By running these columns, The Register has begun to adopt the current Republican strategy of solving our national crisis by putting the new party in power down, criticizing the new government before it does anything, from not moving far left enough to lambasting intellectuals. Sowel, especially, who is now almost universally negative, needs to go.
What the Republicans and Conservatives need is a constructive, positive approach to preserve some credibility with the public - and this goes for the Libertarian viewpoint also - to lay out in
detail, point by point, a forward-looking program to show what can be done to improve our country. It is not enough to talk in hifalutin' terms about smaller government and minimal taxes and personal freedom because, frankly, Republicans and Conservatives haven't stood up for any of that.
Frankly, the negativity is getting tiresome.

Class Acts Abound

Everybody, for public consumption, is trying to be a class act. I find it amusing that Bush is so cordial to Obama when meeting with him at the White House, yet it is the right thing to do and we can admire it. McCain of course can't say one bad thing about Palin in his appearance tonight on the Jay Leno Show. The sniping comes from people who don't want to be named.
On the Republican side, it is suspect that no one wants to speak the truth and really look at what happened and, more importantly, why it happened. Blaming "headwinds" and "economic forces" is the easy way out right now, even for McCain. Bush, of course, wants to go out in style as a prelude to being remembered as a "great" President, even though he and Obama disagree on the most fundamental issues.
On the Democratic side, it is part of a planned strategy to not ruffle the feathers of anybody at this time. Lieberman is part of this strategy. Obama is not into playing the blame-game in any way, shape or form. What Obama apparently wants is to transition into the Office of the President with a minimum of infighting or trauma. He wants to keep things positive because he knows that, if they go south early on, he will have an even greater mess, and an even steeper uphill battle, on his hands. He has bigger fish to fry, once he gets in, and I believe he knows it.
Washing their dirty linen in public may be theraputic for the Republicans, but it could hurt and easily turn ugly. My prediction is that it will take place, sooner or later, as the factions grapple for the leadership of what remains of the GOP.
I suspect we're going to see more of this "We have work to do and we're rolling up our sleeves and doing it" attitude on Obama's part and, under his leadership, none of the public blaming or retribution, at least publicly. It might even be refreshing as people understand more of what he wants to accomplish.

Handover

I'm proud - aren't you? - to be from a country where the transition from one very different President to another, from one party to another, is done matter-of-factly without the need for armed force, assassinations, bloodshed or any of the inhuman things people do to each other for power and the right to rule. Many people are willing to die for such a luxury as we have here, and what we often take for granted, in a country that, in its formal turnover, behaves lawfully and civilly. Despite our many faults, I'm proud that two Presidents can put aside their very great differences and can serve, whether they realize it or not, as an example to the world. Savor the moment, in this time of existing and impending crises. It's enough to bring tears to one's eyes.

Two "hidden" issues

I believe that it is possible that two issues, apart from what is now just plain old "habit", hold many people in the Republican Party. They weren't really mentioned by McCain; Palin did bring at least one of them up. I was reminded of this by what Rep. Mike Pence said on Fox News today. When asked by Chris Wallace what "conservative solutions" the GOP would bring to their current minority-party status, Pence said social issues like "the sanctity of marriage" will remain the backbone of the Republican platform.

So "sanctity of marriage" and "right-to-life", the two ideals, both very emotional issues, may be what the Republicans will begin banking upon. By emotional, I mean NOT logical. Truth to tell, "right-to-life" as an issue, snares many Catholics, of course, and many fundamental Christians. Not letting homosexuals "marry", even though they might be allowed to have civil unions, certainly snares the Mormon vote, as the vote on the California referendum proves. Both are not meat-and-potatoes issues, such as taxation or health care or even the overall economy, but are "values" issues. These two issues can trump, so to speak, issues that may in fact be even more important to the voters involved, but which they knowingly or unknowingly ignore in favor of the strength of these two issues. And the Republicans, even if they don't really care about either of these two issues, know they can use them to snare voters (some fundamental Christians have begun to see the light about this and realize they've been snookered by a group in the GOP who could care less about whether abortions are performed or gay people can marry).

These, by the way, are often hidden in campaigning and only surface with code words. The parties involved know what's involved, including the makeup of the Supreme Court, which will determine if Roe vs Wade gets struck down, but still talk about - I love the phrase - "sanctity of marriage." Why, just for the heck of it, couldn't marriage between two men or two women be "sanctified"?

I'm always impressed by the hypocrisy involved here. I always thought that a true Republican, a true Conservative, believed in less government involvement when it came to telling the populace what to do. They rail, loud and clear, about Big Government. The NRA would agree with this. Yet, when it comes to these two issues, all of a sudden it becomes imperative that the government stop all women from having abortions and all doctors from performing them; and the government must not perform marriages for all gays, male or female. In these two instances, Big Government is allowable and even smiled upon.

To Obama's credit, he seemed to steer clear of these two hot issues, as if they were landmines that could blow everything up. He might even have convinced a few true believers that the economy and other problems trumped these two very idealistic issues.

Excuses, excuses from the aggrieved

Most of the reading I've been doing of Republican and Conservative blogs and articles seem pretty lame. There seems to be a lot of denial out there at this point, plus much finger-pointing and blame, and the professionals, like Limbaugh, are training their sights on predicting how bad it's going to be under Obama and a Democratic majority. All this would be pretty laughable, except for the fact that Palin, and I'm not overlooking McCain's participation, gave encouragement to some pretty ugly hostility that could begin to break out, like a wildfire, into some even more uglier actions on the part of those individuals who feel powerless now and look at violence as a solution. I do not like Limbaugh for that reason; he sometimes plays with fire; when you listen to him he sounds aggrieved as well as angry (that's his dirty little secret).

What I would like to hear is some clear analysis, and see some harsh light cast upon what really did occur, so that Republicans and Conservatives can sort it all out. To act otherwise is to be childish and downright stupid. In any sport, like football, for instance, if you don't understand why you lost and what you can do about it next time, you haven't got a chance to win again. Such an analysis requires putting aside the hurt and ego, stepping away from the propaganda and lies commonly used in a campaign, being unemotional about what really occurred. I urge those who can do this to do so. All the rest is scapegoating and/or grousing.

I once worked for a very smart guy who used to say, "It's time to follow, lead or get out of the way." If you love this country, there are too many important things to be done to play the blame-game, grouse or predict dire consequences.

Obama's first press conference

Some random thoughts about Obama's first press conference:

• It was civil.
• You didn't think questions were being avoided.
• Obama's remarks were infused with intelligence.
• The subjects ranged from the usual, to the difficult, to the personal.
• Obama showed a sense of humor without losing the gravity.
• You get the impression that these are men who want to do a good job and are girding up for it.
• You also get the impression they can be tough when they need to be.
• Obama's remark about being "a mutt" injected into a discussion of what pet dog would be chosen shows remarkable self-awareness and lack of fear about who he is.
• Obama was respectful and courteous even when he didn't answer a question directly
• It seemed to be what a Presidential press conference "should be".
  
• He came across as Presidential.

NOTE: If all of this sounds like a fan letter to the President-elect, it probably is. As time goes on, we will find plenty, no doubt, to be critical of and times when we don't agree with the President or his staff.

Response to article in American Spectator

I read your piece "Saul Alinsky Takes The White House" [http://spectator.org/archives/2008/11/06/saul-alinsky-takes-the-white-h#comment_5181] with amusement, Mr Hillyer, because your detailed scenario of how the Democrats will take over and enslave us (I'm being somewhat sarcastic here) sounded like a page out of the - guess what? - the Rove Playbook. I have the feeling that you've seen Rove's moves in action and, therefore, can use them in your imaginary scenario. Rove. I daresay, might have written it.

But what's missing is any suggestion on your part that the people who are coalescing under Barack Obama's leadership all, I believe, want to correct what's wrong here. And plenty is wrong. But they aren't blaming; they're too busy getting started; they seem to be interested in not playing the blane-game and, instead, putting people and programs in place to make America a beautiful place again. They're also strong enough to know, for instance, that a filibuster can sometimes hold up progress, as opposed to letting the minority rant and rave.

By the way, one factor that needs to be addressed is why Republicans are now in the minority, and why their influence is shrinking. There's a reason for this and, if the Republican Party is to survive, it must understand this.

To think in terms of it being a battle, Mr Hillyer, is to over-simplify it. Thinking like that is easy and absolves all of the Republicans who went along with the program. The hard work, the heavy lifting, that needs to be done to restore the Republican Party to prominence involves analyzing the current challenges, fashioning a realistic plan to deal with it and correct the problems, and implementing enough of it to prove that it works. Slogans, name-calling, PR and denigrating the "other side" won't work.

Remember, even Greenspan has admitted that he did not fully understand the situation and its impact. He admitted he made a mistake. He told the world that his analysis was flawed.

Prejudiced view right now

Watching Obama choose Rahm Emanuel, David Axelrod, and Robert Gibbs as chief of staff, senior adviser, and White House press secretary, I had the distinct impression that these are intelligent people who "get things done." I rather liked that. I also got that they're veterans and can be tough, not cronies or namby-pambies. Someone criticized the choices as old-style, but what I picked up is that Obama wants people in his staff who know politics and how it's played, so he can get done what he wants, which is a sea change in the way politics have been conducted. They don't have to be black or young right now; that will happen. In one article someone slipped in the caveat that Rahm Emanuel was also a moral person at heart, so any toughness he may demonstrate will be driven by that. I suspect many of his picks will be moral people.

A case in point about who's in charge: When Obama met General David Petraeus in Baghdad, after being briefed about Iraq, he said, according to the Time Magazine article by Joe Klein: "You know, if I were in your shoes, I would be making the exact same argument. Your job is to succeed in Iraq on as favorable terms as we can get. But my job as a potential Commander in Chief is to view your counsel and interests through the prism of our overall national security." In effect, he was saying, as your Commander-in-Chief, if I'm elected, I must have an overall point of view for the entire situation. That's smart; that's strong; that's the right way, I believe.

Rather than play the blame-game or go for retribution, Obama may also make use of people who may have opposed him, such as Powell or even Rice, preferring that approach to out-and-out tossing them under the bus. Unlike Bush, who, like Circe, turned people into swine, Barack Obama may offer them a path to retribution, to a chance to do good and an opportunity to atone.

That's my current prejudice, anyway.