Quote:
Originally Posted by KSig RC
I know that "change" is a non-starter because we're changing from a horrific era in American Executive history, but for a guy who promised a "new sort of politics" (based around a post-partisan agenda, a "common sense" approach, etc.) the heavy reliance on the Clinton-era staff, while overcoming experience issues (which, again, aren't very intelligent to start), still seems . . . awkward. I guess I'd almost feel better if it were just new people, since I find that the Clinton era is an overrated period anyway.
Not that I disagree with any particular selection, as all seem reasoned, but I don't think attacking the "experience" bent should even be an issue, and is completely reversed by the lack of a "new" era.
|
I had noted in another thread that one of the benefits of using such a vague term as "change" as the theme for a campaign is that you don't have to set a baseline. So, when people ask whether something is really a "change," Obama can shape the baseline; he can say that it's change from the Republican way of doing things, or change from the current administration, however he wants to frame it. It's not necessarily being disingenuous, just careful and creative with wording.
That said, I agree with RC in that it seems a bit odd to trumpet change, but then to rely on (admittedly capable and intelligent) Clinton appointees (also in the idea that the Clinton era was somewhat overrated, and has become more overrated in light of the Bush II presidency). These are people who, not too long ago, were part of the White House machinery, who no doubt have relationships with Clinton-era favored lobbyists, and who know how to work the system, so to speak.
But, as I said, it all depends on how you frame "change."
Threaded Mode
