http://disqus.com/people/jthompsonxfaa/enSat, 22 Nov 2008 11:59:48 -0000http://washingtonindependent.disqus.com/clinton8217s_team_at_state/#comment-3954524The idea that Obama hasn't balanced all of Clinton's negative aspects with her positive aspects is silly. Obama is probably one of the most careful people ever to hold the Presidency, and I don't mean that as euphemistic for 'gutless,' the way that some others might.<br><br>Now that he's been elected, what realistic benefit does Obama get from appeasing the Clintons at every turn? None. They're both influential within the party, but aside from her one vote in the Senate, no Democratic elected official - much less the ones Obama appoints - will dispute Obama's policy solely because a Clinton doesn't completely agree. It won't help Obama to have the Clintons somewhere other than squarely behind him, but he doesn't need them. So he must want them, and must think that there's some value to Clinton holding that position. Why?<br><br>One of the two biggest problems in philosophy during the Bush years was that loyalty to the President and the RNC's espoused ideology on any issue came before anything else. Even if you knew this was a bad idea, you kept your head down and your mouth shut. Obama will constantly look to synthesize opposing viewpoints into policy, stripping away the nonsense, the cant, the false dichotomies. It won't be all hard power all the time, or all soft power all the time. There may be a damn good reason to intervene in someone else's conflict, or make war (in light of how broke we are as a nation and how tired the Army and the Marines are, emphasis on the 'damn good').<br><br>More than anything else, I voted for Obama because of his prudence. I'm going to trust his reasoning until I'm given good reason to do otherwise. Who cares if the right answer is doctrinaire-progressive or not?jthompsonxfaaSat, 22 Nov 2008 11:59:48 -0000http://washingtonindependent.disqus.com/another_year8217s_worth_of_gates/#comment-3695340The last eight years show us that if you can find someone competent for a given position, for God's sake, leave him or her in it.<br><br>Cleaning up after Rumsfeld was and is an Augean task. We shouldn't lower our estimate of Gates' worth just because he is a Republican, or believes in a permanent U.S. presence in Iraq as an academic matter. If he can find it in himself to execute a withdrawal from Iraq, then he's worth keeping unless someone of equal bureaucratic competence comes along. They may be out there, but I haven't heard any names mentioned yet.jthompsonxfaaTue, 11 Nov 2008 20:24:19 -0000