troublesum, Maybe Obama has enough self-confidence to bring in strong people able to whip less tractable power centers into line (Jones and Gates for example) because he needs them to do that to further HIS policies, not theirs. I think his appointees understand that they are there to give as much advice as they want but that the policy decisions will in the end be Obama’s—and probably Michelle’s too. Suspect she has more influence on him than Nancy had on Reagan, and is inclined to use it. He wasn’t my first choice, but I don’t think that much really scares him. Would you be scared if Rahm Emanuel was watching your back? If anything, I worry that he has too much ego to be afraid when he should be. But he’s smart, his intentions are good ... and things are so bad that it’s hard to see how he could make anything worse. He has just promised governors his administration will start mainlining money directly to the states, which is a good sign that it’s not just Wall St. he wants to rescue.

All “gracious” candidates say that about their opponents.  Clinton said that about Obama. The point of controversy over him picking her stems from his argument that she lacked foreign policy experience altogether (that all she did as First Lady is drink tea with heads of state) and that what experience she did have did not matter because she lacked judgment.

  It is fair to question Obama about these contradictions.  Of course, the media should have probed the issue more deeply at the time.  If she lacked foreign policy, then he certainly did as well. But asking about it amounts to playing a game.  Sorry, but that’s a pathetic line, that only an Obamapologist could endorse.

check out:
http://www.presidentialperformance.com/book.html

Bill Clinton inherited one of the worst economies and still managed to end his term with a surplus even with a republican nominated head of the federal reserve (Greenspan).