A way of testing if Obama has plans for change in the future.

[Cal33]

Let's see what Obama will do about the following events that are coming up:

1. Whom he will choose as a replacement for Summers.
2. If he will give Elizabeth Warren real powers to carry out her job.

a. If he chooses another Wall Streeter to replace Summers and does not give
Warren the full power to carry out her job, he is still trying to curry
favor with the Neocons. After all the exeperiences he's had with them,
he'd have learned nothing, because "bipartisanship" is no longer an
option in his mind, but has become an "obsession-compulsion" with him. He
is no longer capable of exercising free choice in this area.

b. If he offers Summers' job to someone like Krugman and does give
Warren full powers to carry out her job, he is finally indicating to the
Neocons that he is quite willing to go it alone without their cooperation,
and they can go and do you-know-what to themselves.

c. He may offer the job to someone like Paul Krugman and give Warren
very limited powers, or the other way around, choose another Wall Streeter
but give Warren full powers. In these cases, he wants to show some toughness,
but doesn't want to be too tough. In short, his mind is still not made up.

Rahm Emanuel is rumored to have set his eyes on getting the job of Mayor
of Chicago. Whether Obama chooses a more left-leaning or right-leaning
Chief of Staff will further strengthen or weaken the three hypotheses given
above.

Are there others in top positions who will be leaving this Administration
soon? They could offer more clues of which way Obama might go in the
near future, or if there would be no change at all - just more of the same.

[stray cat]

1. I know the GOP certainly does!

[Cal33]

3. The GOP only has plans to change to THEIR more-of-the-same. :)

[EFerrari]

2. The econ advisers, Rahm!, Warren, bringng the vote on DADT and the Dream Act

all within weeks of the election. Cool.

[Cal33]

4. Yes, they ought to help us see which direction Obama will be taking.

[lunatica]

5. Well Krugman has already said he's not qualified for that political position

But he also said CEOs aren't either, and that Wall Street people aren't either. The economy is not a business and shouldn't be led by businesspeople who's training and education is in making profits, not running programs for the benefit of everyone.

There was on OP here earlier today with Krugman's article.

I'm very curious to see how much Elizabeth Warren is allowed to do too. And I'm hoping not to be disappointed with his replacement of Summers and Rahm.

edited for spelling and to add more

[Cal33]

8. I just heard on MSNBC Chris Matthews saying that Bob Woodward

has come out with a new book "The Obama Wars." Obama is quoted as
having said that he'd continue the Afghan war, but not beyond two
years, because he didn't want to lose the entire Democratic Party.
Well, the two years are almost up.

So, Matthews was speculating about politics playing a role in the
Afghan war. Another point brought up was, if Obama was in it to
placate the military? (This immediately reminded me of
Eisenhower's warning about the Military/Industrial Complex - we're
living in it right now! This is it! The military are in it for
their careers, and corporations are in it for the money). And
Obama is in it because of what? Fear, perhaps?

[FrenchieCat]

6. I'd like to work on foiling the Republican plan in the next 40 days,

cause I know what that plan is about.....
in fact, I know it so well, I don't even have to ask,
or speculate. Do you have any concerns on what you
already know about the Republicans, or do their already
stated plans matter at all to you?

That's a question.

[Cal33]

7. Well, good for you. I know that whatever the Neocons' plans

are, they're up to no good. So, sock it to 'em.

I also prefer to call Neocons Neocons. You know they joined the Republican Party,
took decades to work their way up, usurped the power of the Republican leaders,
kicked them out, and took over the party. The whole thing was done quietly.
They're smart enough to keep on using the Republican name, and old-timer
Republicans (who are unaware of the coup) continue to think that they are
"voting Republican."

I think those who refer to Neocons as Republicans are inadvertently helping the
Neocons keep up the illusion that they are Republicans. If everyone called them
by their true name, it might very well help to bring the light of truth to those
who are unaware. I know of a few aware old-timer Republicans who quit the
Neocon Party. But millions don't yet know.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

10. Neonazis?

I don't llike them at all.

[Cal33]

12. Yes. And they have the gall to call Obama a Hitler. They are

projecting their own worst qualities on to somebody else.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

15. they follow the pattern

[Cal33]

9. It is of concern to me that the Neocons are out to destroy and

annihilate any Democratic president, just because he is not one of their own.
It does not bother them in the least how much damage is being done to the
entire nation, all they're interested in is power and profit for their own
party. These people have the mentalities of the immature and primitive
savages - they are hardly the material for leaders of a nation.

Furthermore, outright lying is a part of the officiel principles and
practices sanctioned by the founders of their party, who encouraged
them to lie to the masses for the sake of political gain. Politicians
already have an unsound reputation in this regard, but the
NeoConservatives have brought this point to an abysmal depth - the depths
of the degenerates.

[unkachuck]

11. K&R....n/t

[Cal33]

13. Many thanks.

[Cal33]

14. Watching whether Obama hires more conservative or more

liberal advisers will give us an idea of how willing
he wiil be in the future to become more liberal or more conservative.