Greg darlin, you are only repeating what the PresidentElect is repeating to the repeated questions on the subject.

Doncha love it that he just spits common sense back at them?

Apologies for repeating this yet again, but it's something of a fool's errand to try to try to concluded too much in advance about the ideological cast of this presidency merely by looking at his appointments. It makes a heck of a lot more sense to let his actual policies do the talking.

Don't apologize. Unfortunately, there are too many not-too-rational people out there who just don't get it. I'm glad that you actually DO get it, Greg.

Thanks much for the injection of reality and rationality.

Greg,

I agree. Its Obama's policies that can be questioned not his appointees, because at the end of the day the 'buck' stops with President-elect Obama.

Finally, Obama put a nail in the coffin; the talking head will stop repeating the meme that says Obama is deserting the progressive values.

Like someone else, kos in particular, argued Obama is going to use the brightest people to carry out his policy, be it someone from the past Clinton's administration or whatever. I don’t care about the personalities that carry out the policy but I care about the policy itself.

This is the same message Obama has been delivering about Iraq and the military in general.

As president I set the mission. This is a…I just had an interview with the Military Times yesterday in which I said one of the flaws in the president's approach is to say that he is doing what General Petraeus tells him is the best thing to do. That's not the president's job. The President's job is to tell the generals what their mission is.

Regardless of the views of the economic technocrats or of the military officials Obama commands, they follow his policy.

Love it. He just keeps talking sense.

Wish I could take a post-Turkey nap tomorrow and wake up on Jan. 20th.

Apologies for repeating this yet again, Greg, but you're a pathetic dumbass who has as much business writing political or historical analysis as I do playing for the Lakers.

See, making appointments is an ACT, not some dream state divorced from reality. There are tons of brilliant men and women with past Administration experience, so the evidence here isn't about the Clinton Years or not the Clinton Years, it's the fact that everyone Obama is appointing are RIGHT-OF-CENTER people with federal experience. And out of that pudding is going to emerge such righteous, progressive policies, right?

Get lost, chump.

It has not sunk in yet among the bobble-heads in the media, the sniping Republican pols or perhaps even in the blogosphere: Obama will be in charge.

Having cabinet secretaries does not mean he is jobbing out his decisions. He will never be too busy to make a decision but he will demand grown-up, non-ideological presentations from his cabinet and staff.

Obama will not wish he was at The Ranch or on foreign junket. Obama will be a man of action.

If I were religious, I'd find a place to light a candle, pay alms or flog myself in appreciation of this gift.

*waving at Tena!*

in the same vein, see this Andrew Sullivan post on Gates...

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/11/the-radicalism.html#more

I completely agree.

And yes, actual policies to be implemented are what matters most. But having said that, Obama's appointments so far themselves make a lot of rational sense, in my view. They are all logically and rationally explainable vis-a-vis the current domestic and international situations and the goals he wants to achieve, even if you don't entirely agree with each and every specific one of the appointments. And that's for me reassuring, after too many things that defied any logical explanation during the last eight years.

Well, it matters a lot who runs these agencies. They can implement the vision well or poorly, based no their own opinions and ideology. Or simply because they don't really see how it can work or push it through over objections.

Frankly, the idea that the ideology of the appointee doesn't matter is naive.

More Obama rejection of liberals here. From Lieberman to Gates.

Change starts with me.

Loves it.

but it's something of a fool's errand to try to try to concluded too much in advance about the ideological cast of this presidency merely by looking at his appointments.

I don't think you revised that sentence quite enough Greg.

Well, this is the critical point:

"Apologies for repeating this yet again, but it's something of a fool's errand to try to try to concluded too much in advance about the ideological cast of this presidency merely by looking at his appointments. It makes a heck of a lot more sense to let his actual policies do the talking."

Just look at the example of the king's first cabinet. Everyone was praising it and saying how moderate and yada, yada, yada. It didn't mean squat. Darth Vadar, the uber right winger, took over the show and screwed the entire nation regardless of the cabinet window dressing.

Bottom line, it's who's in charge. Obama is clearly in charge and is brilliant. He needs people to implement his policies, not people to satisfy the "base" or as window dressing. I like his choices so far and the way he is handling himself. I especially like keeping gates on. Brilliant move and looking good.

Other than the clintons of course. Had to throw that in, but maybe they will grow on me.

Except that one said keeps getting left out.

It's early and time will tell, but progressives and labor seem outside the "bipartisanship."

Thank you Greg for picking up on the "vision" comment by Obama. It was probably the most important part of his press conference.

Obama's getting shot at by "experts" who describe him as selecting people for his administration as if he's just reaching into a Halloween grab bag to see what pops out. The idea that the man is in charge and making decisions about personnel based on a set of values or principles seems to be beyond most of them.

The country should be grateful because we finally have someone running the place who has a point of view and knows how to express it by hiring people who can implement it.

Thanks again for noting it. It will be interesting to see how many other so-called "experts" note it as well.

Obama, the vision guy--LOL--lots of luck and lots of laughs.

He hired Summers--he's the Vision Guy. ( for better or worse...)

Looka here, I don't mean to scare TPM'ers but...

Of the Democratic Party's "Vision Thing," it all starts with Robert Rubin.

When Rubin was Treasury Secretary to Clinton, he passed through legislation that allowed Citibank to become an investment bank, Citigroup. This started the mess we now find ourselves in. Rubin, the investor, turned Citigroup into a wild west gambling casino. Using ponzi schemes, alchemy, leveraging and other hocus-pocus, this man almost single-handedly turned toxic sub-prime mortgages into seeming gold and deluded purchasers all over the world into buying worthless junk!

To know Rubin, the mentor of Obama’s economy "geniuses" Summers and Geithner, is to know how hopeless our economic leadership has become. Perhaps there is still time for Obama to change horses midstream and go with advisers more Main street than Wall Street.