For anyone troubled by Obama's answer to the reporter that the change comes from HIM...

[jenmito]

I don't see the problem. He was asked how he could claim to be keeping his campaign promise of bringing change when he's bringing in so many people from the Clinton admin. and other people who his base might not be happy with (paraphrased) and his answer was, "Understand where the vision for change comes from, first and foremost," he said. "It comes from me. That's my job, to provide a vision in terms of where we are going and to make sure then that my team is implementing ."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/26/obama-defends-cabinet-the_n_146648.html

I read posts by a couple people who were less than happy with that response, saying things like, "Remember when Obama said WE are the change? Now he's saying HE is the change." (paraphrased). Well, when he said the vision for change comes from HIM, he meant the people he chooses for his cabinet will be implementing HIS agenda. And who does he get his agenda from? US. He hears us and he's keeping his promises to us. The people he chooses will be working for US, through HIM. He won't be a doormat for the strong personalities he's bringing in.

He can obviously deal with them and WANTS to deal with them. We just have to trust him to carry out the things he SAID he would. And why shouldn't we? He never told us he was going to be "governing from the left" or including any specific people. He DID say, many times, that he'd have people he didn't always agree with or who would tell him when they disagreed with him so he could get all sorts of input and make the best decisions. He didn't want "yes men." He alway talked about there NOT being a "red America" or a "blue America," but the "United States of America." I think some people here are projecting onto him what they want to see, but that doesn't make him a liar or even a "slick politician." It makes him the person he always was and always said he'd be.

[jwirr]

1. I think he said policy direction comes from him. Someone has to be

the leader otherwise we have chaos.

[jenmito]

4. I gave his direct quote. But yeah, he also said it will be HIS policies that the people

he has in his cabinet will implement. Just like when he said he'll gather his foreign policy experts in his admin. and give them their new mission-to get our troops out of Iraq. Whether it's Gates or Petraeus or whomever.

[Radical Activist]

2. You have to put things in context.

Yeah, taken alone it contradicts his campaign theme. The idea that change comes from the people is a core part of Obama's philosophy that goes back to his days as a community organizer. The idea that he'll suddenly forget all of that is far fetched. His point is easy enough to understand but some people are eager to see any sign that Obama is moving right.

[jenmito]

5. Exactly...

I agree 100%.

[Jennicut]

3. Obama can put Woody Woodpecker in his cabinet for all I care, he can lead people

if he has a great vision.

[jenmito]

6. Same here...

I don't really care WHO he puts in his cabinet-it's HIS cabinet and I trust him.

[Life Long Dem]

12. Same here. I think Santa Clause is fine in his cabinet if he chooses Santa himself

The point being it's Obama's decision and not some made up rumors MSM is pushing on Obama. But it's "me me me" doing the choosing.

[lamp_shade]

7. I didn't know anybody was "troubled" by his statement. This is news to me. Jeez.

[jenmito]

14. Well, I can't "call out" certain posters, but yes, a couple of them WERE troubled by his statement.

Jeez.

[jenmito]

18. Here ya go:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x7930872#7931016

[lamp_shade]

21. Ah yes. I remember grazing my way through that one. 'Twas fun and interesting. n/t

[jenmito]

22. "'Twas fun and interesting" to say the least. n/t

[Sinistrous]

8. I knew this would happen.

When evaluating that statement, the emphasis has to be on the word VISION, not on the word ME. The pundits are having a ball making Obama appear to be some kind of a megalomaniac because of this statement, instead of the visionary we voted for.

[elocs]

9. Like it or not, the buck stops with him.

What is he supposed to do, hold a national referendum on every decision or simply consult DU so he would always know the best thing to do. After all, here at DU we know all that is to be known and then Obama could simply handle the rest.

[FrenchieCat]

10. It is Obama that ran on a platform of change. He basically told us exactly what that change was,

and in voting for him, we basically communicated that we want that change. But "Change" on its own is too broad a term to take literally. So those who object as you mentioned are allowing themselves to get hung up on semantics. Reminds me of the folks who squawk about his appointments not realizing that he never ever said that change would come from him picking nothing but new faces to get the job done. If one is to take Obama literally then one has to follow through and find the quote when he told us exactly this (which he never did).

So literally speaking, we can't be the change, because we are too many differing voices (and not all of us want the same changes or believe the emphasis belongs on exactly the same things) to be the actual Change.....but Obama does need us to stay active to make the changes that he proposed happen.

"We are the ones that we have been waiting for" is what he said, and I believe that this was meant in the sense of us getting together to help make the change happen (electing Barack was the number one change, of course)....but he is the one who will institute the change, hence the change will come from him, although certainly, he is an extension of us....the one we selected to effect the change. That's why many voted for him; because we believed in his vision and his leadership to get it done.

Again, the discontented are holding on to semantics to rationalize their position.

[jenmito]

15. Good post...

You're exactly right. Thanks for wording it so well. :hi:

[davsand]

11. Responsibility ultimately rests on his neck, I'd say.

If it goes from sugar to shit (not that I think it can GET much worse than the last 8 years) it is Obama they are gonna be mad at, not that vague "all of us." If those torches and pitchforks ever do come out, it isn't for some vague mass of people it is for one or two guys.


As for all the people pissing and moaning about Obama and his transition progress, I have to ask WHO did you THINK he was gonna choose to work with? A bunch of third graders from boo-foo noplace? A bunch of complete rubes from left field?

About the only experienced Dems still un-retired (just think how long it has BEEN since we had a Dem administration prior to Clinton's) are the ones associated with Bill and Hil and the rest of the DLC crowd. I sure as hell do NOT want a repeat of the Carter failure (bless his heart, he was trying but completely misguided) at this juncture in time.

WE have an economy that is screwed--possibly beyond salvation--and right now I want a few folks working in this that maybe can keep it from falling completely apart. Seems to me that folks with experience in a thriving economy MIGHT be the ones to help find our way back.

As for Hil and the question of is she gonna be the Sec of State, I honestly have no feeling one way or the other on it. I distrust the Clintons themselves because I do not trust them to be able to hold their personal shit together--not because I think they are bad people. I think they are a potential PR nightmare, always WILL be and it can't be helped because even If they live the lives of saints there are too many people out there digging for OLD sins to "expose."

If Obama thinks Hil's experience and views are something he needs then so be it, and he's smart enough to know what he's "buying."


YMMV.


Laura

[jenmito]

16. I agree...

with your entire post. :hi:

[Grateful for Hope]

13. Surprised to hear that some were bothered by his comments

They had the opposite effect on me. We need a strong leader, and, I thought his comments validated that this is what he intends to be.

In this respect, it really doesn't matter who he selects for his cabinet (although I do believe that he is making his selections based on experience and wisdom), because, in the end, it will be his decisions that will be honored. I am sure he is making this very clear to all who are currently being vetted.

This is so refreshingly (and urgently) different from the current president, who has been, it seems, very uninterested in being involved in day-to-day decision making, in favor of granting inordinate power to his subordinates.

Thank goodness we elected a president who will demand to be involved.

On a side note: For selfish reasons, I would prefer that Clinton remain in the Senate as she is my senator, and NYS is in bad shape economically. NY'ers, after all, are responsible for her election to the Senate, and, it somehow seems that the wishes of her electorate, in this case, are not being taken into consideration, as I know others here who would also like her to remain in the Senate. If she is nominated for SoS, however, we are going to need to honor Obama's choice.

[jenmito]

17. Yup...

it was on at LEAST one thread about Obama's last press conference.

I agree with your post. Hillary's MY Senator, too (NY). I'd like her to remain in the Senate, too. :)

[AZBlue]

19. Some people aren't happy unless they are miserable and telling everyone about it.

Ignore them.

[jenmito]

23. Well put.

"Some people aren't happy unless they are miserable and telling everyone about it." :D

[HughMoran]

20. It's the perfect answer IMO, the quintessential Obama

He's a pragmatist, NOT an idealist. This means he leads by active example not by some esoteric philosophy that may not always have practical application. He will give us practical (or pragmatic) solutions to real problems, not political hay that only feeds political hacks.

[jenmito]

25. Exactly! And he's ALWAYS been that way.

For all the people who are upset with his cabinet he's forming, they obviously weren't listening to him for the past two years.

[BlooInBloo]

24. Don't bother. We're in for 8 years of DUers being "troubled."...

Or maybe 4, if the "troubled" crowd has their way.

[jenmito]

26. I sure hope the "troubled" crowd gets over its misconceptions about Obama

and how he runs his administration. He's keeping his word and everyone who voted for him should've realized who and what they voted for.

[BlooInBloo]

27. They won't.

[jenmito]

28. Then they don't belong here. Even without them, if Obama sticks on

the track he's on, he'll be reelected with an even larger margin than this time.

[BlooInBloo]

29. (shrug) I'm about the wrong-est person to talk to about that there could possibly be - lol!

[jenmito]

30. In what regard, Charlie?

:D