Obama's Choices

We are learning more about Obama's administration as he chooses the people who will surround him when he takes office. Having run his campaign on a promise of "change," the current line up doesn't really inspire a lot of confidence in his ability to deliver it (not that I had a lot of confidence in him anyway, but thats beside the point.) From today's Washington Post (by Michael Gerson):

A defense secretary, Robert Gates, who once headed the George Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M. A secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, who supported the invasion of Iraq, voted to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization and called direct, unconditional talks with Iran "irresponsible and frankly naive." A national security adviser, retired Gen. James Jones, most recently employed at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, who served as a special adviser to the Bush administration on the Middle East. A Treasury secretary, Timothy Geithner, who is one of Henry Paulson's closest allies outside the administration. A head of the Council of Economic Advisers, Christina Romer, whose writings and research seem to favor low tax rates, stable money and free trade.

Gerson goes on to say (emphasis mine):

Second, Obama's appointments reveal something important about current Bush policies. Though Obama's campaign savaged the administration as incompetent and radical, Obama's personnel decisions have effectively ratified Bush's defense and economic approaches during the past few years. At the Pentagon, Obama rehired the architects of President Bush's current military strategy -- Gates, Gen. David Petraeus and Gen. Raymond Odierno. At the Treasury Department, Obama has hired one of the main architects of Bush's current economic approach.

This continuity does not make Obama an ideological traitor. It indicates that Bush has been pursuing centrist, bipartisan policies -- without getting much bipartisan support. The transition between Bush and Obama is smoother than some expected, not merely because Obama has moderate instincts but because Bush does as well. Particularly on the economy, Bush has never been a libertarian; he has always matched a commitment to free markets with a willingness to intervene when markets stumble.

The candidate of "change" is discovering what many presidents before him have found: On numerous issues, the range of responsible policy options is narrow. And the closer you come to the Oval Office, the wiser your predecessors appear.

This is exactly what I was thinking through the election. While Obama may have some grand plans, the reality of the situation he finds himself in doesn't lend itself to the "miraculous" change that he promised while running (hopefully, anyway)

And finally, this is probably one of my favorite qoutes from this article:

Third, Obama is finding the limits of leading a "movement" that never had much ideological content.

Even though many have praised Obama for his speaking skills, I always felt like it was so much fluff. What he said sounded great, but I never heard a lot of substance. It was good enough for those looking for pretty words, but anyone who actually listened and paid attention was probably left wanting. But that's just the humble opinion of a Communications/Public Speaking professor.