It was change from the Bush years that we were going after. Obama represents that, without a doubt. He will not govern the way Bush did, in either tone or policy. That change is necessary because Bush really damaged the country.

That Obama has Clintonites on his team is not a problem. He was never really arguing that what we needed was radical change from Clinton-style policies. The argument was that he'd more effectively deliver change from the Bush era. Obama and Clinton largely wanted to get us to the same destination, but Obama convinced the voters that he'd be the better driver.

Now I see people fretting about the influence the Clintonites will have on Obama. Don't worry, it cuts both ways. Obama will have an effect on them too.

Obama and Clinton largely wanted to get us to the same destination

I really can't agree, destor. I saw Hillary as old-school politics, including the traditional Dem Washington crowd, while Obama was going to be a breath of fresh air -- opening up government to the large untapped resources the country had.

It's possible to have a bi-partisan cabinet without tapping the same people who have been deeply involved in the government for the past 20 years -- and that includes tapping the "usual suspects" on the GOP side as well.

When I go to Washington, it's frustrating that most people there really don't know what it's like in the rest of the country; they have simply lived too much in the bubble.

It would be nice to have true citizen-politicians again. One of the more attractive things about Obama for me was precisely because he spent so much time in the trenches. The stories you hear on the campaign trail don't really get at the same issues as living it day to day.

It's disheartening that in a country of over 300 million people, a few hundred are the ones tapped over and over to "run things". Not only do they not bring in new ideas, they become slowly removed from the real day-to-day issues that the rest of us face.

There are literally thousands of senior academics and business people that could be asked to fill these positions. We should do it.

critics wondered how Obama could deliver change while keeping his promise of bipartisanship

I think those critics weren't at all listening to his definition of change. Willful deafness.

From his books, his 2004 keynote address (i.e., breaking down the red vs. the blue,) onward, through a lot of things he said and wrote, he meant he wanted one of the major changes to be breaking down partisanship.

The post-partisan thing is no blithe sound-bite to him. Seems to me that majority rule over partisanship is one of his few ideological beliefs. He's a student of the constitution, and I suspect he sees protection of minorites and special interests is mainly the business of the judicial branch and not the executive or Congress. He has enunciated in a lot of ways that it's destructive to efficient government to give special interests, including liberal ones, a lot of access over the majority wishes.

Let me say I do think a lot of his young "fans" got the message, that the postpartisan thing was part of his appeal to them. They were raised on cynicism about the partisan he said/she said, liberal vs. conservative to and fro in the media and on the net (the more educated among them also know what postmodernism is and are even cynical about that :-))

With the netroots left, the willful deafness thing interested me as a phenomenon while it was happening. Because in many cases, it seemd it was willful deafness self-imposed after most of the other primary contenders dropped out. At first, they saw him as he really was, and equated him with Hillary, both unacceptable. Then, all of a sudden, he becomes a stand in for all their liberal dreams, despite all the things he said before. Because of Clinton derangement syndrome? I dunno, but I sure thought it was strange to see so many politically savvy people falling for an extreme difference in the kind of change each one would produce.

My own problem was wondering about his sincerity about how he presented and skills, whether he would walk the walk. I see more evidence every day that he is and was sincere, and he is so far, hiring the skills.

A related: Rahm Emmanuel in today's New York Times:

“Even though the majorities are big, the challenges are of such a magnitude that we’re all inheriting, it’s going to require bipartisanship to solve,” Mr. Emanuel said in an interview after completing a round of meetings with Congressional Republicans. “We’re not lip-synching bipartisanship here.”

Mr. Emanuel...signaled to Republicans that the president-elect wanted to work alongside them. He handed out his personal cellphone number, urging them to call at any hour if they needed to reach him, and he asked them to submit their ideas for the economic recovery plan and other issues of potential agreement.

Even when they were in the majority, Republicans were often frustrated with the Bush administration’s lack of outreach to Congress. They said Mr. Emanuel’s arrival on Capitol Hill less than three weeks after the election — though no breakthroughs were made on issues — sent a good preliminary message.

G. I think you're precisely right that the preferred model is fairly technocratic, albeit using processes which aim for more transparency, bipartisanship, etc. And - back in 2006/07 - I would have agreed with much of this course. Good management plus good intentions can produce a lot of positive change, especially after the wreckers have been in for so long.

My reading of the times, the world right now, is that "events" appear to be putting us in a place where that approach alone... may not be sufficient. It isn't to say we don't need good minds, good managers, transparency, etc. We still do. But it now feels more to me like we're in a time where, if we "simply" follow the preferred courses from 2 years ago, most of the proposals and designs we bring forward will be over-run by events.

The problem then becomes one of how fast can these top-notch people open their minds, take in a larger scope of events than they had previously seen, understand whole new connections, and whole new opportunities, listen to new voices, and adjust. Intellectual flexibility is a rare thing, and not one found in all leading minds. Sometimes you need new people, whole new approaches, etc.

I don't blame Obama for starting this way. No one is ready for "change" if the type we may well need - not Congress, not the media, not the public. So he probably "had" to start here. but the ability to hire, fire, shift to new power centers, revamp before throwing good money after bad, these are the skills I suspect he'll need most. And... my personal opinion... I think he has some of these skills. Here's hoping.

Obama won't have to deliver change, it's already hurtling towards us. The question is how we will adapt to change, and how well Obama will facilitate our adaptation.

A few weeks before the election, I was chatting with one of the cleaning men that show up here around closing time and we started talking about Obama. He was worried for Obama but figured he must have a calling. A few days after the election, the same fellow was almost poetic, telling me how we all have to change, to be better, because Obama can't do it all by himself. That may have been the essence of a sermon he just heard, but it sounded heartfelt.

Good question and good answer. Thanks, Xenghis.

I suspect those who thought Obama would substantially change things will be disappointed. His cabinet is full of Clinton retreads so I'd expect Clintonian policies. This talk of bipartisanship is baloney, Obama hasn't done much to reach across any aisles yet (aside from that photo op with defeated McCain). I'll wait for him to take the reins, but don't expect much innovation. Obama will catter to every lefty with a wish list. Universal health care, abortion, gay rights, non-intervention, global warming and a generally socialistic approach will pervade whatever emanates from the new administration.

"Bipartisan unity" is quickly and rightfully becoming a misnomer.

Multi-partisan unity might be the better term, now that the no-bid, book-cooking, pre-emptive doctrine torturers are done having their way tith all of us.

They depended on a two-sided split to steal their power in the first place.

By choosing the best and brightest, rather than the most well-connected, Obama's proving that there are more than two sides to every election.

And it is quite encouraging to see our TPM prism split the daily beam into a rainbow, instead of two opposites looking for a fight.