Ballin!!!
First Joe
Dip-Setttt!!!
Huh? What's that you say? Wrong Jim Jones? Oh. My bad.
Squale!!!
My bad to all my LCD-rap illiterate members of AverageNation™ I just lost with that one.
Goonie Goo Goo.
Still, as the faces of The Obama Admin are assembled, I'm wondering what we should read into the relative absence of black and brown faces in the high profile appointments. Sure, there's Clinton holdovers like Eric Holder and Bill Richardson, and ChicagoLand
My thought is no, the main man at the top of the ticket is all the "diversity" that's needed. In the current dire times, hiring experienced folks to run the most important positions is a must. And as the lower profile positions are filled, we'll see lots of younger, less familiar faces, many of whom like Maryland Lieutenant Governor Anthony Brown (rumored as the head of Vets Affairs) will be black and brown, filling out the roster.
Besides, what's most important isn't color, it's competency. I've long argued that affirmative action is still necessary because it allows qualified minorities and women entrance into venues they might otherwise be excluded from. The Obama appoinments aren't and shouldn't need to be affirmative action hires. Over Obama's time in office, he's undoubtedly come to know enough people of all walks of life to be able to appoint quality people to help him run the country. The appointment of brilliant minds like Dr. Susan Rice and Melody Barnes shows this to be the case.
It's quite unlike Clinton and Bush Jr's exaggerated efforts at "building a diverse cabinet". Clinton reached for people he didn't know enough about (Lani Guinier), only to kick them to the curb when inconvenient. Bush's idea of "diversitification" was hiring every brown person he'd ever met at the country club. Thus, we got losers like Rod "No Child Left Behind" Paige. Then again, Bush's picks were just generally unqualified anyway. Michael Brown, anybody? So, Obama's "best man for the job" mantra is alright by me. By simple virtue of the black and brown folks in his Rolodex, it'll all pan out.
One final note: If I hear one more "pundit" talk about how his cabinet of Clinton refugees "doesn't look like change to me", I am heading to New York to kick some arse. The "change" is at the top. It was evident in the campaign he ran. The people he is hiring work for him not the other way around. Disciplined, dedicated leaders can get the people under them to buy into their vision and carry out their ideas. I don't see anything about Obama that says he won't be this very sort of leader. So enough of that "Hillary and Bill are sabotaging the Presidency" nonsense. As if Obama was smart enough to go to Harvard and Columbia, yet isn't smart enough to know how to manage the occasional difficult employee? Wigga Please!
Still, I guess I'll run this by you guys for good measure.
Question: Does the Obama Administration need to be "diverse" or is it merely "diverse" by virtue of the man making the hiring decisions? For a guy who ran on the platform of "change", do you think the Obama cabinet is "more of the same"? Would Jim Jones make a good Secretary of Ballliiinnn?
Obama faces less pressure for diverse Cabinet [Politico]
James L. Jones Is Obama’s National Security Advisor [RightPundit]
[1] Since we're loading up on middle aged sistas, how about we bump Rahm Emanuel, and name Christine Beatty CHIEF OF STAFF while we're at it? It worked out pretty well for Detroit. I'm just sayin'.
Got News? Email AB
The Average FAQ
Just Who Is AB?
Posts
22 AverageComments™:
well, you have Melody Barnes and Susan Rice, albeit a Clinton holdover, she is a Rhodes scholar, i think i got that right about her.
I love seeing black women in those positions like that.
But, I think you bring up the main concern most whites use who incorrectly bitch and moan about affirmative action. they operate under the false pretenses that unqualified persons of color get the jobs. I'm all for diversity as long as qualified and competent people get the jobs. Same with nepotism. I dont have a problem with it as long as qualified people are in the positions. However, its always some random Cousin It who gets the job.
The key is that the Cabinet can be diverse and qualified. Its not like previous Cabinets haven't been diverse because people of color didn't have the ability.
As far as the narrow definition of what change is...I'm worn out on that whine. Anyone who has worked in an environment with a bad boss and a good boss knows that the office/staff (and as a result the productivity) can change with the snap of a finger depending on the boss's standards.
Co-sign Uppity and Symphony...
diverse BUT qualified
On that note...
I wanna see you dance, see you dance... I wanna see you dance, see you dance...
The man at the top is no dummy. He has to assemble to best team possible and it looks like he is doing so. If things keep going the way they are going we won't need to worry about affirmiative action.
Diversity, at this point, is far less important than are competence, experience and capability. We don't need "feel good" government, we need "do good" government.
i'm pretty much in tune with all the comments here so far. as we learned yesterday, we're in a recession. we have new terrorist acts popping off all over the world- mumbai and those daggone pirates off the coasts of somalia and yemen, school systems are still in jeopardy and the list goes on and on. the man has so much work to do. he needs the best to help him, whoever that may be. so long as he is considering, and appointing where approporiate, qualified brown faces, that's good enough for me right now. i care moe about actually getting out of this mess than i do about who's leading the charge to get us out.
I think the Obama cabinet is defintely more of the same. It will be interesting to see how it all works out. This is after the same fellow who during the debates was saying things like "We need change from tired Washington insiders and Clinton-era retreads".
Evidently he changed his mind.. =)
But policy is more important than persons so we'll see if Obama truly represents a break from current US foreign policy. So far I would say no.
I think Obama is giving domestic businesses a new template of executive power. People of all races, nations and tongues (albeit top quality) coming together to solve problems.
It's an ideal that should have arrived centuries ago.
But better late than never. If I'm a Fortune 500 company, I'd be looking very hard in emulating that look. There are treasures of ideas and qualities to be found in all types of people. That is what true wealth is.
EG
At this point in the game dude has to get experience on his team. The only diversity that really matters right now is the Donkey/Elephant factor. Color shouldn't be the issue. It made more sense for Clinton and Bush Jr to do it rather than Obama.
He needs to have a strong cabinet that will put his idea of change into place regardless of skin color. If he put a lot of faces that resembled his own then I think people would be more upset at that.
@ AB:
If you're coming to New York to kick some arse, go easy on me when you get here, huh?
I have mixed feelings about Clinton's State appointment----the main reason I supported Obama (that is, back in the spring before I realized that he was a heavyweight in his own right) is because I didn't want Hillary in the executive branch. I know she's extremely competent, but the fear of "same old, same old" does nag at the brain (I also didn't like how she was so in the bag for AIPAC---and I'm Jewish so I can say that. :)
But we'll see. She ain't the big boss, and hopefully her strong skills will be utilized to their fullest extent in a constructive direction.
Sometimes companies feel like they need to shake things up a bit, to change if you will. Sometimes that change is a new executive. The executive may completely clean house, or (s)he may implement new policies for the veterans to follow. Either way, change is possible. The only appointment so far that I've questioned is SoS Clinton. I believe her to be wholly competent, but ultimately self-serving.
And someone said it above me, but Obama's got a difficult balance to strike. Not enough "diversity" and black folks might disown him, too much and people will accuse him of Executive Level Affirmative Action and a disregard for what's best for the country. I'm glad he's in office, but I don't envy ANY of the decisions he has to make. Not even about the puppy.
Obama has never been any sort of leader, throughout his working life and legislative history... he's never had a job that required leadership. There's nothing but his words to indicate he will be now, but I hope he is.
And I'm sorry, but his cabinet is very Clintonite. Not to say there aren't some sharp mind in there! It's just that they were the same sharp minds Clinton picked. Immanuel, Podesta, Geithner, Richardson, Holder, Rice, and Ms. Clinton herself...
--------------
I think Hillary will flame out. She's all about the political machinations, but I don't think she has the skill to handle foreign policy. It was her weakest area in the campaign... I suspect she will be a high-profile image who will ultimately accomplish nothing. Also, I expect Gates will eat her lunch in the age old State vs. Defense cage match.
A further prediction:
Everybody who has so recently flipped from Shady's position of needing a break from the Washington insiders and gone ultra-apologist now that your pick has switched gears to do what needs doing (rather than all that stuff he talked in the campaign) is talking about how the change is at the top, and the buck stops with him...
When Clinton chokes, mid-east peace doesn't happen, and "the world" (i.e. Brussels, Russia, and Iran) still hates us, when Clinton is replaced in 2010 for somebody else, will you blame the man at the top for failures?
Naaah, you guys will be apologists again, pinning the blame on her. You heard it here first...
@ Spool
"What could I say about that comment that hasn't already been said about Afghanistan?" - Dave Chappelle paraphrase
I suppose running the most efficient, tight shipped, and well funded campaign in the history of politricks wasn't leadership. Registering record number of voters as a community organizer wasn't leadership. Sponsoring 133 bills in 4 years in the Senate wasn't leadership. Keeping his cool while his opponent lost his marbles during the economic meltdown wasn't leadership.
Spool, I believe, in your heart of hearts, that you simply want the man to fail. And that, sir, is very, very sad.
When Clinton chokes, mid-east peace doesn't happen, and "the world" (i.e. Brussels, Russia, and Iran) still hates us, when Clinton is replaced in 2010 for somebody else, will you blame the man at the top for failures? Naaah, you guys will be apologists again, pinning the blame on her. You heard it here first...
I'm not exactly sure who "you giys" is a euphemism for. I don't know many black folks here, or elsewhere who have, or are planning on giving Obama a "free pass".
Seriously dude, McCain lost. Barry won. Let the Obama hatred go. It's worse for your health than those Double Cheeseburgers, that's for certain.
@ Marbles
If you're coming to New York to kick some arse, go easy on me when you get here, huh?
I'll definitely go easy on you. And reality is, if I were headed to NYC to kick some behind, it would more than likely be that of my direct reports/employees first. Maybe Plaxico Burress second. Fox News third. I'd probably be out of energy and headed back to the Acela after all that.
@ Symphony
I couldn't have (and didn't) said it better myself.
@ Ciara
Now you done messed up. I'm going to be hearing "Pop Champagne" in the back of my head all day. Thanks a lot.
@AB:
You're wrong... I hope he does good things for the country, and that his cabinet doesn't sabotage him. I also hope that people do hold him to account for his mistakes. I'll be glad to be wrong about that.
"you guys" = people who have flipped from "out with the old guard, change is coming" to "Change is at the top, this is how the game works, you have to hire experience". Will they flip again, when the experienced hands make mistakes? Or will Obama get blamed? I hope you're right, but I expect otherwise.
As for your leadership list... no, none of that is. Some of it isn't even very accurate. But as I've said before, Obama is my President and he has my full support until he starts doing stuff I can't agree with. I hope he turns out to be the leader other people believe he is. I want him to rise to the occasion, govern from the center, and succeed on the world stage.
My political goal over the next four years is to oppose policy I think will be bad for America, not to tear down a President. I'll leave the politics of destruction to the Kossacks, the Progressive fringe, and the leftwing haters - I'm better than that.
Per spool32 both comments:
He is right.
Obama did flip on us--technically. i didnt expect to see this many Clintonites in the appointment positions. BUT, given the state of domestic affairs, it shouldnt be a shock and I'm okay with it.
Practically, however, Obama has been consistent.
Obama said more than once that taking a hard edge given changing circumstances is bad leadership. in other words, the mark of a good leader is their ability to flip flop. The economy was tanking consistently as the campaign season wore on, and Obama showed he was able to roll with the punches and McCain came off as mildly schizophrenic.
I wouldnt say Obama is not a leader or a bad leader, but a different type of leader. The buck ultimately stops with him. Hes much more diplomatic and laid back in his approach letting those underneath him be themselves.
And um yeah, clearly he proved the more effective leader in the campaign, soooooooo to "you guys" out there, dont hate, it doesnt look good on y'all.
I take politics and political-speak for what it is so I'm apt to think people weren't voting for Obama because they wanted to see a bunch of people who've never stepped foot in DC before.
But I'm not drunk of the punch. So I'll ask: is that why hardcore Obama supporters voted for him? Is that what people thought when they heard the word change?
Because I think a belief is being placed on the supporters that they may not have necessarily had. I dont like the media speaking for me so I'm hesitant to believe the media knows what its talking about when it sets a narrative for others.
@ Symphony
So I'll ask: is that why hardcore Obama supporters voted for him? Is that what people thought when they heard the word change?
I'll bite on that one. When I heard "change" my thought was...
* A "change" from "my way or the highway/with us or against us" tactics of the past.
* Move towards deliberation and thought in decision making, as opposed to acting on foolish impulse.
* Truthfulness.
* Less mud slinging and grandstanding. More cooperation. Especially during the primaries.
I haven't seen Obama do anything that demonstrates he won't carry through on that sort of change. Needless to say, I don't agree with everything he's said. Heck, I don't even agree with everything I've said, so why hang that expectation over someone else?
But by simply doing the things above, he'll bring "change". I don't expect miracles from his administration, just a capable job.
I don't think that's asking for much, and I doubt he'll have any problem delivering.
@ Spool
Sorry bud, but I'm not convinced. I don't think you're a bad guy by any means, but in your heart of hearts, I think some part of you wants him to fail miserably so you could say "See, I told you so!" Not that you want our great country to suffer, but you REALLY don't want Obama to suceed.
I think your approach to Obama is not too different from running into an ex-girlfriend who once dumped you at the mall and seeing that she's run into some hard times. You don't wish her ill, but some part of you feels good that she's worse off.
Or so I hear. Not that that's ever happened to me or anything...
@ Ciara
4 hours after I read your comment, that stupid song is still in my head. Thanks a lot.
By the way, that mid-east peace plan is going to get solved...but not in the way you'd expect.
That whole situation over there is Biblical/Religious in nature and the one to present the "peace" plan isn't on the scene yet, though his systems of world domination are.
Digital Angel microchip? Check.
World Govt. Empire? Check.
Economic Collapse? Ongoing.
Third Temple In Jerusalem? Not built yet.
Just a little of my prophecy studies getting out of hand. :)
EG
@ Ciara
4 hours after I read your comment, that stupid song is still in my head. Thanks a lot.
^^^
I wanna see you dance, see you dance..I wanna see you dance, see you dance...oooohhhhh, we pop champagne, ooooohhh, we pop champagne
I am LOLing @ the Emolument Clause, and looking forward with great amusement to the legal game of Twister Obama's transition team is going to have to play in order to confirm Hillary.
It's been done a couple of times before, but it should be fun to watch!
@ Boboso, I agree. I don't need someone to give me lip service about how diverse his picks are. I want the best person for the job.
I have been in positions where i was questioned for the folks i picked who didn't look like "us." i picked the best folks for the gig and I was proven right.
@Obamaphiles (not you AB) : it is MORE OF THE SAME. The concept of change Obama kicked during the campaign seemed to imply that change will be all encompassing.
I knew he was pulling my leg by the fact that he ran as a democrat. they are part of the reason why we are all in this mess right now.
The only thing he keeps changing is his time table on Iraq.
PLacing all of the blame on the BUsh administration is a clear demonstration of one's lack of understanding of how our political system works.
Brother OMi: Hey, I hear that. I've spent the last eight years becoming a premature curmudgeon at the age of 26 ("How can you be a curmudgeon already?" my dad says. "You haven't EARNED it!"), because as horrid as I find the actions of the Bush administration and appalling the behavior of Congressional Republicans, I've had to endure the pathetic sight of the Democratic Party happily surrendering what little integrity it had. All in the name of....
of....
Of WHAT?!?!?
Good God, at least the GOPpers have the excuse of being crazy. The Dems? No excuse. It's sickening, how they aided and abetted these atrocities (including Nancy "Off the Table" Pelosi, who KNEW about the waterboarding as far back as 2002 and basically pretended to be surprised when it broke later.)
Post a Comment