It appears to me that Obama is making the same mistakes that the Democrats always seem to make when it comes to dealing with Republicans.  When will the Democrats realize that they cannot have any type of bipartisan relationship with the Republicans without totally sacrificing their ideals like Bill Clinton did with his welfare reform bill of 1996. Just as the Republicans take their views about torture from the fictional tv show 24, the Democrats are still addicted to the West Wing. In the West Wing the Republicans are depicted as being decent human beings who are lookng out for the best interest of the country. But in reality as the last eight years have taught us that this is not the case. It aggravates me that Obama put in some unecessary tax cuts in order to get Republican support, but the Republicans still voted against his stimulus bill anyway. The Democrats need to got over the West Wing and start playing hardball against the Republicans and defend their ideals.

In the opening days of his administration it appears that Obama has stared a diplomatic revolution in the Middle East. Obama has stated that Israel must cease its blockade of Gaza and allow humanitarian supplies and that the Americans need to help the Palestinian people rebuild. Also Obama has named George Mitchell, an Arab American, to be in charge of seeking a two state solution in Middle East. Mitchell is a far superior choice than Dennis Ross, who was seen by the Palestinians as being too much on Israel's side. Mitchell along with James Jones makes it appear to the moderate Arabs that at least Obama is willing to take a impartial stance in any future Israeli-Palestinian talks.

In his inaugural adress, Obama stated that the American people and politicians should be more reponsible in their own lives. However the current wiretapping revalations make more neccessary than ever that Obama needs to prosecute those in the previous administration, who broke the law. On both the Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow shows it was revealed that the NSA wiretapped journalists and organizations that disapproved of Bush's policies. If Obama wants to set an example of responsibility in his administration, he needs to presecute those whe were acted carelessly in regrards to the constitution and American democracy.

Obama has made repeated promises to abolish nuclear weapons altogether much like how Lincoln abolished slavery in the United States. I wonder if Obama was influenced by the anti-nuclear movement in the nineteen eighties. When I was in grade school in the early eighties, there was very strong reaction to the Reagan administration's efforts to increase the US nuclear arsenal. I remember that scientists such as Carl Sagan were on TV warning about nuclear winter and journalists like Jonathan Schnell and Fred Kaplan wrote books about the pointlessness of nuclear war. There was TV docudramas about the effects of nuclear war such as The Day After, Testament, and Threads, which was a BBC production shown on American cable television. So often the Reagan era as being time that conservative ideas  were fully developed, but little is written about how the anti-nuclear movement may have influenced current progressive politicians such as Obama.

Michael Porter on the Charlie Rose Show last night talked about his fear that the United States is getting to be protectionist in its attitude on trade. I don't why academics like Porter are so committed to free trade ideology considering what is happening to this country in the recent economic crisis. The reason why America is so dependent on the unstable financial sector for growth is due the fact that it no longer produces anything. Also America's free trade economy has not really been that great for countries such as China,Germany, and Japan since they have become heavily reliant upon exporting products into the United States and are doing little to reform their own domestic economies. A larger tariff in the United States would allow it to develop a strong industrial base and make the European and East Asian countries invest more in creating a consumer economy at home.

Biden stated that Obama will be tested in his first six months, however this big test could be created by allies of the United States. If the Likud wins the elections in Israel this make an attack on Iran more likely. A future conflict between Israel and Iran could leave American soldiers in Iraq vulnerable to increased insurgent attacks or even a Iranian invasion of Ihat country. Meanwhile the Hindu nationalist BJP party could take power in India, and this raises the possibility of an Indian attack on Pakistan. An Indian attack on Pakistan could strengthen the radicals in that country or make Pakistan move its military to the Indian border and thereby ignore its border with Afghanistan. In the next six months Obama will have his hands full trying to control both the Indians and the Israelis in order to prevent future conflicts.

The Republiclans like to pride themselves on being the party that best represents the values of rural America when it comes to owning guns, bashing gays, and owning a pickup truck. This third value appears to be in jeopardy if the auto bail bill does not pass. The Republicans in the senate have blocked attempts to save the American industry and making the future production of big Ford pickup trucks possible. If the rednecks lose the tradtion of owning Ford F-150 pick ups they will only have one party to blame.

About a month ago Newsweek magazine compared Obama to FDR while Time used Lincoln. However the president that Obama seems to resemble the most is JFK. In his view about nuclear weapons, getting out of quagmires, and picking cabinet members, Obama is very similiar to JFK. After reading Robert Dallek's book about JFK, Obama seems to have the same views about nuclear weapons and the need to abolish them. Kennedy thought that nuclear weapons were strategically useless and needed to be abolished and that nuclear proliferation is the greatest threat to American security, Obama has shared the same views in his current proposal to eliminate nuclear weapons. JFK wanted to get out of Vietnam as soon as possible while Obama wants to create a 16 month timetable for withdrawl in Iraq, Finally Kennedy picked cabinet members from the other party, and Obama has picked cabinet members that strongly disagree with him on foreign policy such as Gates and Clinton. I'm suprised that the mainstream media has not really picked up these similiariities.

I heard that Obama has been making his picks of Hillary Clinton to the State Department, and a center right economic team in order to appease the establishment so that they won't strongly oppose his policies. But is the economic and foreign policy establishment really that powerful in the eyes of the American people? The economic establishment has been discredited through deregulatory policies that has led to the current financial meldown. While the foreign policy establishment has lost legitimacy with the American public by the war in Iraq. However those who want a change in both foreign and economic policies were powerful enough to allow the Democrats regain control of the house in 2006 and control the presidency in 2008. Is Obama overestimating the power of the Washington establishment while ignoring the voting strength of those who want a true change in policies?

What Obama really needs to include in his economic package is a plan for universal healthcare. The lack of universal healthcare is one of the main factors that is weakening America's economy. A large percentage of bankruptsies and foreclosures are due to the fact that people cannot afford to pay the medical bills. I have heard horror stories about people not being able to afford healthcare for ill parents or children. How much money do these middle class people spend on healthcare for their families that could have been used for consumer spending. Also American businesses pay a larger amount of money paying healthcare insurance for their employees that have been best been used for hiring new employess or keeping prices down. It appears to me that the healthcare insurance industry is a vampire sucking the life out of the American economy and the only way to defang it is to have universal healthcare.

Team of Rivals by Doris Kearns Goodwin and Jonathan Alter's book about the first hundred days of the Roosevelt administration are sold out at both my local bookstores. Is Obama doing to nonfiction books that Oprah did with woman's literature and JK Rowling with children's literature, by making people buy history books. Hopefully Obama will get a whole new generation of Americans interested in history.

Obama appears to still be living in the 90s with his choice of ex-Clintonites  and being super selective on who he chooses to be working for him. According to Daniel Schor on NPR, Obama picked out Rahm Emmanuel and Hillary Clinton because he though they have experience. But the world is a completely different place than it was dring the nineties. The United States now has try to end two wars and solve the financial crisis. To do this requirres fresh new minds and not veterans from the Clinton administration. Also Obama appears to fear that press would go after anyone with something in their closet due to the fact that applicants applyng for positions in his administration must have a perfect record. This appears to be mainly a 90s fear when the press had nothing to write about but scandals . With the economy in the toilet, I doubt that the public would have much of an appetite for tabliod stories about the Obama administration. Moreover Obama his once again limiting his choice of advisors and viewpoints.  Obama needs to realize that the nineties are over and that he needs new perspectives even though they could offered by someone, who may not have a perfect private life.

I would be really disappointed in Obama if he picks Hillary Clinton to be Secretary of State. Hillary is to the right of Richard Holbrooke, whom I strongly disapprove of , and her foreign policy basically resembles that of Joseph Lieberman. Her comments about getting involved in a potential Israeli-Iranian conflict and supporting the second Iraq War raises serious concerns about her judgement. But for those who do not like Hillary's foreign policy we must remember that it is ultimately is Obama, who makes the decisions.

    A few new books basically describe that it is ultimately the leader and and not his advisors that make policy. In the book Lincoln and his Admirals by Craig Symonds, Lincoln rejected his naval secretary's advice to block all trade with the Confederacy, instead Lincoln  allowed a limited amount of economic interaction between North and South in order to soothe postwar tensions. While in another book Lessons in Disaster by Gordon Goldstein, Kennedy ignored the hawkish advice of Bundy and McNamara to get his involved in Vietnam, while LBJ accepted their reccomendations in deploying American ground troops in Vietnam. Finally in Carlo D'Este's book Warlord: A Life of Winston Churchill at War 1874-1945, Winston Churchill ignored his military advisors and made the disasterous decision to divert British forces from North Africa into the doomed effort in Greece in 1941. Although the British political system is different it was still the leader of the country who was responsible in conducting the war. All three of these books basically state that cabinet member or minsters, in the British case, have no real power to stop the leader of the country from implementing policy.So when it comes to dealing with Iran and Russia it will probably be Obama in the driver's seat and not Clinton. 

       

 

 

Josh Marshall on TPM TV has stated that Obama is considering to keep Gates for one more year due to the influence of Brent Scrowcroft. A lot Democrats are angry at Obama for wanting to  keeping Gates, but if it means having a Secretary of State Hagel than I'm all for Obama listening to the advice of Brent Scrowcroft. Some progressives want Obama to pick Holbrooke as Secretary of State and reject Hagel because the former is a Democrat while the later is a Republican. Will progressives actually feel comfortable with Holbrooke's hawkishness towards Russia and Iran. Also how will Holbrooke's policies be different from the current neo-Conservative foreign policy of the Bush administration. Hagel's foreign policy would mark are sharp shift with its realist emphasis on diplomacy and working with allies. Hagel symbolizes change while Holbrooke is just the same product but in a different package.

There is one person that Obama really should not consider as Secretary of State and that is Richard Holbrooke.  Holbrooke was just as bellicoise as John McCain during the Russian conflict witrh Georgia. Holbrooke with his hardline attitude toward Russia will only alienate Western European countries such as France and Germany. Moreover, Holbrooke will continue the hardline stance against Iran that could likely lead to conflict. Also Holbrooke will not be considered an neutral particpant in any Israeli-Palestinain conflict due to his past association with the Clinton peace process which was led by Dennis Ross, whom many in the Arab world believe to have a strong pro-Israeli bias. Finally Holbrooke supported the Bush administration during the run up to the Second Iraq, and I personally believe that says a lot about his judgement. Obama needs to make clean break with either Susan Rice or Chuck Hagel as Secretary of State instead of attaching himself to Clinton's failed foreign policy in the Middle East and Russia which is best symbolized by Richard Holbrooke.