PATSY?

In the three personnel matters involving Obama and the Democrats, we have so far seen nothing new.

Rahm Emanuel is the essence of politics as usual. Probably a good appointment as chief of staff, since he therefore knows Washington so well. But Emanuel stood with Schumer against the 50 state strategy and is as tied to Wall Street as the Clintons are.

Speaking of which - Hillary Clinton doesn't have even the qualifications of Condoleeza Rice to be Secretary of State. She didn't wind up on the Obama ticket because Obama couldn't trust her or her husband not to knife him in the back. Now he gives her the up front role in American foreign policy? As David Ignatius put it:

"Given this ferment, the idea of subcontracting foreign policy to Clinton -- a big, hungry, needy ego surrounded by a team that's hungrier and needier still -- strikes me as a mistake of potentially enormous proportions. It would, at a stroke, undercut much of the advantage Obama brings to foreign policy. And because Clinton is such a high-visibility figure, it would make almost impossible (at least through the State Department) the kind of quiet diplomacy that will be needed to explore options."

Justin Raimundo of antiwar.com:

"Hillary opposed every significant peace initiative he put forward during the campaign, including a timetable to get us out of Iraq and direct negotiations with our adversaries. She derided this last - and very encouraging - stance as 'naïve' and 'dangerous.' Is this the person who will now be expected to take the lead in facilitating those talks?"

And Lieberman keeps his committee chairmanship? I understand that his vote may be necessary if the Democrats get to 59 - but so far they haven't, and they probably won't; so if that was important, why not wait until the unresolved elections are resolved?

I understand that Obama believes in reaching out - but if he doesn't reach out to progressives pretty soon, with some new faces in some significant posts (for example, Max Cleland in charge of veterans affairs, an appointment for which there is no other logical candidate and no reason why it could not be announced immediately - yet it hasn't been) people are going to look at him the way they look at Bush - as a patsy for the party establishment. People believed the Obama campaign was about principle. Now we get to find out if we got fooled.

Perhaps the most cogent sign that Obama is prey to politics as usual is that, while during his campaign there were no leaks, everything is leaking out now. That has to mean that Obama is losing more control with every old pol he consults or integrates. Plus ca change, etc. Too bad.