Sorry, I can't please everyone but I do write with different styles. The first part was meant sarcastically but the point is really every time the right feels threatens they dredge up this myth of an America that never really was. It's me me me behind a facade of family values.
The PUMAs are irrelevant and thankfully so. Politics isn't static and they are stuck on May 30th 2008. Their world ended then. Mine didn't.
In September I actually had The Confluence delete every comment I ever made on that blog. I didn't like Obama but some of the things they wrote were beyond the pale. Part of their problem is while passionate, they are not sophisticated enough to know who is who. Thus they would qoute Thomas Sowell, Jerome Corsi, Amir Taheri, the New York Sun. Suddenly the neo-cons were the Bible on Obama. When "liberals" start quoting neo-conservatives, I draw the line.
Great post! This is of course a problem for the Democrats who can only reach into the Clinton era for talent or raid the Congress and the statehouses.
Though Obama did bring Volcker from the nearly dead. Sad that Obama hasn't reached into the think tanks for some talent.
52% of the popular vote isn't a mandate, but Jonathan's right this is what matters now. This is a mandate.
I must say that a few of Obama's press statements have impressed me. Avoiding groupthink, being attentive to dissenting views, providing the vision and direction. All good things that engender confidence.
Well at 50, he's young enough to serve and then return to the House? I'd assume that after 2010 census, California will pick up a House seat or two. How does a hiatus impact his seniority? Would he have to start all over?
There's also the looming retirement of both Feinstein and Boxer over the next decade or so. Senator Feinstein is 75 with four more years on her current term. I'm not sure if she will or will not run for Governor in 2010.
Senator Boxer is 68 and up for re-election in 2010. Assuming she wins, she'd be 76 in 2016 when that seat comes up again. So there will be other opportunities for higher office.
Becerra is a "Southland" guy though I think from Sacramento originally. Not very well know up here in the Bay Area.
From my pov, I'd take the USTR position. It's a strong signal to Latin America. Latin America still has a strong preference for free trade. It's the one part of the Washington Consensus that we care about. The rest of the neo-liberal agenda is being abandoned across the region but access to markets remains a priority.
One reason I supported Clinton's approach on Iraq was that what matters is the situation on the ground now and not who said what or voted which way back in 2003. The DC and NY foreign policy establishment would never sign off on a departure from Iraq if the country was left in a vacuum. Thus Gates (tied to Bush 41's foreign policy team) and Clinton (tied to the Democratic foreign policy establishment) are the blend to actually get the conditions on the ground prepared for an orderly withdrawal that leaves a semblance of stability in the region. That at least seems to be the argument being made with their selection. Also recall Gates served on Baker-Hamilton Commission and Jones too questioned the wisdom of a foray into Iraq.