Obama's house

I'm feeling pretty good about Obama's appointments/nominations so far. In general, he has chosen experienced political figures with well-established records and longstanding connections to Washington. His candidates are uncontroversial and scandal-free (and John Brennan, one of the few exceptions, has now withdrawn his name). They have ties to Clinton and bipartisan appeal, but rarely ties to Bush (with the exception of Robert Gates). A few pros and cons to these trends:

Pros:
1. Experience - Obama's personnel know how to get things done in Washington. None of the appointments seem likely to overhaul current systems (for better or worse), but they will be ready to work on Jan 20.

2. Connections - The new White House team is connected across the government's power grid and they are respected by their collegues for their past achievements.

3. Bipartisanship - Obama promised to rescue a government battered by waves of partisan bickering. I think liberals and conservatives alike pay lip service to the concept of bipartisan government, when they really mean the other side should simply lay down their arms and surrender. Real bipartisanship requires compromise. In my opinion, Gates is the best Bush cabinet member to keep - he has the least association with the terrible decision-making, while allowing Obama to garner support from the military and reassuring conservatives that the new administration actually values their opinions.

Cons:
1. Alienation of the liberal base - Do Obama's center-right appointments mean we are going to have a center-right government? Frankly, I hope not. I hope that Obama's generally progressive agenda won't meet resistance from his cabinet or advisors.

2. Didn't they get us into this mess? - If Tim Geither (Treasury secretary nominee) and Larry Summers (senior economic advisor) are so great, why did the financial system they were in charge of turn out to be as rotted as a two-week old cucumber in the back of your fridge? Glenn Greenwald points out a spooky comparison to enthusiasm for Cheney when he was the VP nominee.

3. Is this "change" or "more of the same"? - When Obama ran on a message of change, did he mean change from the current administration or change from Washington as a whole? Seems like many liberals interpreted "change" to mean "the change I want". Here is an interesting series of letters to the NYT, which provide some varied perspectives on what kind of change Obama's presidency will bring.

As I said before, I am optimistic. Remember how great you felt on Nov 4? Just three weeks later, I'm not ready to let my idealism get crushed by skepticism.